As a nod to Mr. McMurray.

What do you, as connoisseurs of the gaming industry's many products and practiced debaters into the art and science of game design, consider the most effective, useful, and salable method of constructing sourcebooks devoted to critters, monsters, and similar protagonists? Are they even needed?

Not to indulge in endless speculation, but to focus the arguments I would like to provide three examples.

Paranormal Animals of North America for the Shadowrun game (1st Edition). The bulk of this softbound book is formatted as a datafile that may be downloaded and accessed by characters in the game world, providing a reasonable means for the players to have access to the information, with sometimes contradictory commentaries and anecdotes to the text. A full page is given to each critter, with a large black-and-white illustration (with a selection of color plates), and the facing page holding the commentary and the stat block. The back of the book is filled out with additional information, primarily for the gamemaster's ease of reference.

It is important to note that PoNA was the first real critter book for SR, besides a very small and abbreviated version in the principal sourcebook, and some of the commentary tied in with the greater metaplot that is a particular draw for SR. It was subsequently followed by another book, Paranormal Animals of Europe, but no true bestiary of the same scope and approach has been released for SR since. Part of the reason for this may stem from the large amount of 'wasted space' given by the format of the book, or limited interest in reprinting. A particular gripe from GMs was that the players were almost always aware of the critters in the book, with their various powers, which lessened the shock value of using these critters. Another factor was that SR is a primarily urban game, and working in a number of wilderness critters took greater effort. As a level-less system, no rating is given for the relatively deadliness of any given critter.

The Old World Bestiary for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (2nd Edition) is a beautifully illustrated hardcover divided into two parts. The first section is a collection of short essays, anecdotes, sayings, and advice concerning the various critters of the WFRP world, well-organized to give a mix of academic and laymen accounts-some from the critters themselves. The second section is reserved for the gamemaster, and contains the stats blocks and helpful information for making critters more unique and measuring their relative difficult for the players (using as an example how well a given 'average' character manages in single combat).

The prime gripe about the Bestiary that I have heard is the lack of detail -with the material already present in the Warhammer universe, it could easily have been twice as thick. The majority of the unique aspects of the creatures and races of the book are not presented (such as crafting your own Champions of Chaos or the intricacies of Chaos Dwarf, Skaven, or Dark Elf magics), instead giving promises to go into further depth in forthcoming sourcebooks (which, to be fair, has already begun).

The Monster Manual for Dungeons and Dragons (3.+ edition) began popularized as the the third 'core book' which is needed to run the game, and has now become a series in its own right. Similar to the Bestiary, it is a visually appealing hardback with generous illustrations and an easy to use system for judging the challenge of a critter relative to the party; its system of templates and additional information provided in the chapters at the back of the formal creature entries enable a gamemaster to easily increase or decrease the difficulty of the creature.

However, unlike either of the previous books-and indeed, previous editions of D&D-the MM is given over almost entirely to stats, with considerably less room given to fleshing out the creature. In essence, this points the MM out as a prime Hack'n'Slash materia combatica, with a preoccuptation on combat that borders on the psychotic, and makes it of almost sole interest to the gamemaster rather than the players. Part of the problem is that because D&D promotes itself first as a system rather than a setting, there is a lack of popular details for applying a given creature into a given game world. Following books in the MM series alleviate this somewhat with specific sections devoted to using the monsters in the established D&D settings of Eberron and the Forgotten Realms, but the lack of reprinting and updating of several of the books suggests the selling power may be waning.

Finally, I would like to bring up another series of books, the Hacklopedia of Beasts for Hackmaster. Based on the popular comic strip the Knights of the Dinner Table and first edition Dungeons and Dragons, the HoB was originally released in eight softcover volumes arranged alphabetically. Many of the beasts presented were parodies or humorous inventions, others stemmed directly from the comic itself, and each featured a carefully measured if over-the-top 'Hackfactor' to gauge the challenge of the critter-an interesting blend of recent and old-school gaming mechanics, all-in-all. The stat blocks and flavor texts are laid out similar to entries in the MM, but with greater in-depth look at how the beast interacts with the Hackmaster setting. A particular favorite among old-school fans is reading the uses and abuses for various parts of the critter, both as food, medicine, spell components, and to make certain magical items (something that was dropped in 3.+ editions of D&D).

The most vocal opponents of the HoB, of course, point out that this is where the Hackmaster joke ran sour. Eight fully-priced softcovers with black-and-white illustrations (some quite poor compared to other contemporary products) was deemed excessive; especially when a further two sourcebooks came out to present unusual variants, long tables, and methods of customizing the monster to a degree: the Monster Matrix and Field Guide. Further critter write-ups which had appeared in KoDT Magazine have been collected as a moderately-priced PDF entitled Rustlers of the Night-not unlike how full-page MM-type entries in Dragon Magazine were collected and re-issued as addenda in previous editions.

In any event, I think those examples illustrate several of the key points to be considered in creating a modern monster manual or critter compendium, and look forward to your thoughts on the matter.

If you spend a whole book on monsters and beasts, I assume they're pretty important in the game. Most current monster manuals present their menagerie in a way to maximize the novelty factor. A decent picture and some unique abilities. Anything that goes beyond that format is done in a specific source book for the monster or a whole category.

This is all nice if you just want jrients' "awesome factor" or sheer quantity, but I always wanted more details with my monsters. The 2nd edition AD&D manual was a nice way. Three-ring binder works well for the collectible aspect (try to lug all four hardcover monster manuals around), and some of the background info went beyond combat stats.

For a more modern approach, Privateer Press's "Monsternomicon" did it quite well. It's closely tied to the background, so you don't have to deal in generalities. Each monster had some in-game material written about it and a small section of what you know about it depending on your skill value (which WotC just recently adapted).

[Shit, if I knew you'd be posting this I wouldn't have IL'ed you!]

Anyways, I havn't seen the others, but I agree on the Monster Manuals. While I think the stat block was a little easier with the first two, everything outside of that was a little lacking.

I've seen the old Monster Manual... that was gold.

Also, the knowledge bits in the new ones are good.

Frankly, I just like the illusrations when it comes to bestiaries. If those don't rock, the whole thing's a little sour for me.

Quote from: Ancient HistoryAs a nod to Mr. McMurray.

What do you, as connoisseurs of the gaming industry's many products and practiced debaters into the art and science of game design, consider the most effective, useful, and salable method of constructing sourcebooks devoted to critters, monsters, and similar protagonists? Are they even needed?

Yes, I believe they are sorely needed. I like pregenerated monsters simply because I don't want to have to make up stats for them myself. If I was going to do that, I might as well write my own game. And I don't wanna.

Quote from: Ancient HistoryNot to indulge in endless speculation, but to focus the arguments I would like to provide three examples.

Paranormal Animals of North America for the Shadowrun game (1st Edition). The bulk of this softbound book is formatted as a datafile that may be downloaded and accessed by characters in the game world, providing a reasonable means for the players to have access to the information, with sometimes contradictory commentaries and anecdotes to the text. A full page is given to each critter, with a large black-and-white illustration (with a selection of color plates), and the facing page holding the commentary and the stat block. The back of the book is filled out with additional information, primarily for the gamemaster's ease of reference.

It is important to note that PoNA was the first real critter book for SR, besides a very small and abbreviated version in the principal sourcebook, and some of the commentary tied in with the greater metaplot that is a particular draw for SR. It was subsequently followed by another book, Paranormal Animals of Europe, but no true bestiary of the same scope and approach has been released for SR since. Part of the reason for this may stem from the large amount of 'wasted space' given by the format of the book, or limited interest in reprinting. A particular gripe from GMs was that the players were almost always aware of the critters in the book, with their various powers, which lessened the shock value of using these critters. Another factor was that SR is a primarily urban game, and working in a number of wilderness critters took greater effort. As a level-less system, no rating is given for the relatively deadliness of any given critter.

I have both PAoNA and PAoE. They're both OK monster books, I guess. Trouble is, I felt they were rather bland. The background material, anecdotes, etc. is the kind of stuff I always disliked about Shadowrun products - they tried too hard to sound hip, and came off as lame. Plus, many of the critters were simply too cliche. I know, I know, given the fact that SR has to do with the return of magic and mythical critters, you'd expect cliches, but too many of them seemed as though the designers gave no real effort in differentiating them for their game.

Quote from: Ancient HistoryThe Old World Bestiary for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (2nd Edition) is a beautifully illustrated hardcover divided into two parts. The first section is a collection of short essays, anecdotes, sayings, and advice concerning the various critters of the WFRP world, well-organized to give a mix of academic and laymen accounts-some from the critters themselves. The second section is reserved for the gamemaster, and contains the stats blocks and helpful information for making critters more unique and measuring their relative difficult for the players (using as an example how well a given 'average' character manages in single combat).

The prime gripe about the Bestiary that I have heard is the lack of detail -with the material already present in the Warhammer universe, it could easily have been twice as thick. The majority of the unique aspects of the creatures and races of the book are not presented (such as crafting your own Champions of Chaos or the intricacies of Chaos Dwarf, Skaven, or Dark Elf magics), instead giving promises to go into further depth in forthcoming sourcebooks (which, to be fair, has already begun).

I can't comment on this one beyond the brief perusal I've given it at the store. It seems to be in keeping with Green Ronin's high level of quality in the core WH book. The monsters are pretty much what I was expecting, based on my owning the original WH RPG.

Quote from: Ancient HistoryThe Monster Manual for Dungeons and Dragons (3.+ edition) began popularized as the the third 'core book' which is needed to run the game, and has now become a series in its own right. Similar to the Bestiary, it is a visually appealing hardback with generous illustrations and an easy to use system for judging the challenge of a critter relative to the party; its system of templates and additional information provided in the chapters at the back of the formal creature entries enable a gamemaster to easily increase or decrease the difficulty of the creature.

However, unlike either of the previous books-and indeed, previous editions of D&D-the MM is given over almost entirely to stats, with considerably less room given to fleshing out the creature. In essence, this points the MM out as a prime Hack'n'Slash materia combatica, with a preoccuptation on combat that borders on the psychotic, and makes it of almost sole interest to the gamemaster rather than the players. Part of the problem is that because D&D promotes itself first as a system rather than a setting, there is a lack of popular details for applying a given creature into a given game world. Following books in the MM series alleviate this somewhat with specific sections devoted to using the monsters in the established D&D settings of Eberron and the Forgotten Realms, but the lack of reprinting and updating of several of the books suggests the selling power may be waning.

I think using the word "psychotic" really mars this analysis. It seems to indicate a bias against the game. It's cool if you don't like it (and maybe you actually do, who knows), but using such terminology detracts from the air of impartiality which has so far really been a strong point of this post.

Anyway, I think the MM gives more info about fitting the critters into the game world than, say, the original 1e MM. I think you give short shrift to the info that is actually in there. Personally, I like the bare-bones info given. It allows each DM to personalize how he uses each monster's role in his campaign world, and control what the players do and do not know. I dislike the notion of the DM having to be handheld and spoon-fed info about how monsters fit into the game world by the game designers. Plus such information overkill tends to engender too many disputes about "canon." I've seen way too many message board and even some real-world disputes caused by people  acting as though the info in the MM is gospel that supercedes DM fiat. Fuck a bunch of that. Let the DM determine how the monster fits into his world.

Later WotC monster books have adopted a new format, as you note, that includes a lot more info on how a given monster fits into a given game world. Initially, I liked this new format, but the aspect I mentioned above has begun to give me qualms. Some info is good; too much info stifles DM flexibility as players glom onto the Holy Writ of the book to trump the DM (or at least try to).    

Quote from: Ancient HistoryFinally, I would like to bring up another series of books, the Hacklopedia of Beasts for Hackmaster. Based on the popular comic strip the Knights of the Dinner Table and first edition Dungeons and Dragons, the HoB was originally released in eight softcover volumes arranged alphabetically. Many of the beasts presented were parodies or humorous inventions, others stemmed directly from the comic itself, and each featured a carefully measured if over-the-top 'Hackfactor' to gauge the challenge of the critter-an interesting blend of recent and old-school gaming mechanics, all-in-all. The stat blocks and flavor texts are laid out similar to entries in the MM, but with greater in-depth look at how the beast interacts with the Hackmaster setting. A particular favorite among old-school fans is reading the uses and abuses for various parts of the critter, both as food, medicine, spell components, and to make certain magical items (something that was dropped in 3.+ editions of D&D).

The most vocal opponents of the HoB, of course, point out that this is where the Hackmaster joke ran sour. Eight fully-priced softcovers with black-and-white illustrations (some quite poor compared to other contemporary products) was deemed excessive; especially when a further two sourcebooks came out to present unusual variants, long tables, and methods of customizing the monster to a degree: the Monster Matrix and Field Guide. Further critter write-ups which had appeared in KoDT Magazine have been collected as a moderately-priced PDF entitled Rustlers of the Night-not unlike how full-page MM-type entries in Dragon Magazine were collected and re-issued as addenda in previous editions.

LOVE the Hacklopedia! Fantastic resource. I also have warmed up to the Monster Matrix and the Field Guide. Yeah, I understand the price problem. I bought them as they were released - $20/month didn't seem so bad. Still, the Field Guide should have been a product that was released right at the very start, and should have included far fewer variants constructed with the Monster Matrix. I also dig the entries on how to use the monsters' remains for various things like potions and other magic items. Fun stuff. The Hacklopedias are the most purely fun monster books of the ones you mention.

Some of the art is not good. A lot of it is very good, especially the work of the Fraim Brothers (of course). Some of it, while perhaps not that great technically, is very evocative, much like old 1e art was.

I was happy to see the "Rustlers of the Night" collection. Many of those monsters from KoDT are welcome additions to HackMaster, and I hated having to sift through all those back issues.

Quote from: Ancient HistoryIn any event, I think those examples illustrate several of the key points to be considered in creating a modern monster manual or critter compendium, and look forward to your thoughts on the matter.

A good, thoughtful post, except for the "psychotic" bit.

Personally, for a game that is, like D&D, more a system than a setting, I prefer the MM approach - a minimal amount of info about hwo the monster fits in the world. For a game like Shadowrun, Warhammer, or even HackMaster, which all  have stronger ties to a particular setting (or, in the case of HM, a more definite mindset), monster books with a decent amount of background info is more desirable. See the Monsternomicon for Privateers' "Iron Kingdoms" setting for an even better example of such a book with a more narrow focus.

My favorite? Isn't a game book at all-- but Funk & Wagnall's Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend--because frankly I like ancient civilizations delusions better than modern mock-ups that don't even get things "right" (as to using the name of a creature that is not that creature in any known myth--stop being lazy make up a new name!)

Regarding D&D3.x Monster Manuels:

Beyond the first one, I don't care personally for the MM's as a series -- though the Fiend Folio is nice for some high level encounters.  However, and I don't know the name of the series of books, I do like the expanded Monster type books like the Draconomicon, the book of Undead, the newest Demon and Devil books, etc.  I would much rather see WotC focus on those sorts of monster books to supplement the MM rather than another MM5.

An alternative to the focus on mechanics or description in the entries themselves can be found in the Mythus Bestiary. There the entries themselves are largely focused on stats with minimal description, but there is a section in the front of the book that has a lot of information on sensory abilities, agressiveness, and other details.

Not to mention twenty different kinds of horse.

Disclosure: I was an editor on the project.

A special case: the Malleus Monstrorum for Call of Cthulhu (known in previous editions as the Creature Companion and Ye Booke of Monstres). Well over half the creatures in this book (the various gods and the more powerful independent creatures) are never supposed to be encountered by the player characters. They are there to inspire cults and servants - if the gods themselves come on the scene, it's pretty much game over (unless the PCs take the unbelievably destructive "summon a god who hates the god the cultists are trying to summon so they end up fighting each other and leave humanity alone" route).

Quote from: SilverlionFunk & Wagnall's Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend

A quick google shows me that this is something that desperately needs to be on my bookshelf, but is out of print.  Does anyone know of a more modern equivalent? (I have a copy of Brewer's)

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonA quick google shows me that this is something that desperately needs to be on my bookshelf, but is out of print.  Does anyone know of a more modern equivalent? (I have a copy of Brewer's)

A copy was produced in 1994 in trade paperback (but is also OOP). Albeit I own two volume hardcover 50's edition, picked up using //www.abebooks.com last year with the first proceeds of H&S. It was relatively cheaper (56 dollars or so for the two volumes combines) than I'd seen it going for in the past.

My library had it and while labeled "out of date" I checked it out routinely until they moved it to a reference book section (and couldn't goto the library anymore to visit the books *L*)

I know I'm close to earning my fanboy card for this, but Luke Crane's Monster Burner was an incredible monster book. As a fairly small collection of monsters it's still punchy and has creative takes on creatures I would describe as centerpieces for a night's gaming. The real gold is the book contains a sizeable and well explained section on how the probabilities of Burning Wheel will relate to making your monsters easier or harder in a fight. This book goes right into the nuts and bolts of making your own creatures and that is a great approach for this particular game and great food for thought for the general game tinker.